What evidence is there that the Bible has been changed?

Question

People here say all the time that the Bible USED to say such-and-such, but it was changed by some person or some government or some council...

What evidence is there that the Bible we have today is not (barring a few minor copy mistakes or something) the same as what was written long ago?

I'm not asking about the accuracy of any particular translation, either when it was translated or over the course of time. You can show that some translation is completely wrong, and that has nothing to do with my question.

It's also not 'evidence' to say, "Well, everybody knows that the Bible has been changed," or even "Mohammed and Joseph Smith say it's been changed." I'm asking for evidence.

The question at hand is not even, "Are there different books that should have been in the Bible?" I'm asking about the 66 books we have today - is there any evidence to support the common claim that those particular books used to say something different, but they got changed?

"Holy day changed from Wednesday to Sunday"? Contact me with information on that!

Answer 1

The bible has held together better than any other historical document. There are copies that are just second or third copies that our curent copies are tested against. so anyone who says there is any at all, is either ignorant or lying.

Answer 2

Actually all "changes" are due to copiest mistakes in what we call the original languages.

try this experiment: take an original document.

(a page from a book) Have ten people hand copy it.

Now take those 10 copies and give them to 10 different people.

Now take those 20 copies and give them to 20 different people., 40 to 40, 80 to 80.

Now take all the copies and you will notice that we get Families of copies, example let's say one of the original copiest made a mistake on line two.

Say he wrote; "and the bat was fine." everyone down the line who copied from his copy will have the same mistake.

By comparing all the copies we notice that a small group (family) have bat, whereas the rest have "cat".

Compiling all the copies we can come up with an accurate original, because none of the original copies will have the exact same mistake.

In reviewing the accuracy of the original language copy of the bible we find that the accuracy is very accurate because we have 1000's of copies to compare.

The problem comes not in the original language but in the translation into our language.

Here is where you run into bias and interpretation issues.

Edwin H. Palmer, Th.D., Executive Secretary for the NIV’s committee wrote:
“Here is why we did not: You are right that Jehovah is a distinctive name for God and ideally we should have used it. But we put 2 1/4 million dollars into this translation and a sure way of throwing that down the drain is to translate, for example, Psalm 23 as, ‘Yahweh is my shepherd.’ Immediately, we would have translated for nothing. Nobody would have used it. Oh, maybe you and a handful [of] others. But a Christian has to be also wise and practical. We are the victims of 350 years of the King James tradition. . . . than to have two thousand buy it and have the correct translation of Yahweh. . . . It was a hard decision, and many of our translators agree with you.”

As to an accurate translation, please note the following:

Old Testament:
In fact, the New World Translation is a scholarly work. In 1989, Professor Benjamin Kedar of Israel said:
"In my linguistic research in connection with the Hebrew Bible and translation, I often refer to the English edition as what is known as the New World Translation. In doing so, I find my feeling repeatedly confirmed that this kind of work reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible. Giving evidence of a broad command of the original language, it renders the original words into a second language understandably without deviating unnecessarily from the specific structure of the Hebrew....Every statement of language allows for a certain latitude in interpreting or translating. So the linguistic solution in any given case may be open to debate. But I have never discovered in the New World Translation any biased intent to read something into the text that it does not contain."

New Testament:

While critical of some of its translation choices, BeDuhn called the New World Translation a “remarkably good” translation, “better by far” and “consistently better” than some of the others considered. Overall, concluded BeDuhn, the New World Translation “is one of the most accurate English translations of the New Testament currently available” and “the most accurate of the translations compared.”—Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament.

“Here at last is a comprehensive comparison of nine major translations of the Bible: King James Version, New American Standard Bible, New International Version, New Revised Standard Version, New American Bible, Amplified Bible, Today's English Version (Good News Bible), Living Bible, and the New World Translation. The book provides a general introduction to the history and methods of Bible translation, and gives background on each of these versions. Then it compares them on key passages of the New Testament to determine their accuracy and identify their bias. Passages looked at include:
John 1:1; John 8:58; Philippians 2:5-11; Colossians 1:15-20; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:8; 2 Peter 1:1

Also explored are passages involving "prostration" or "worship," gendered language, the "holy spirit," and the use of "Jehovah." Two hundred pages in all offering my most detailed examination of the issues and pressures involved in Bible translation. If you've found my comments, observations, and answers instructive or challenging in the past, now's your chance to get the complete picture.”
Thank you, and happy reading!
Jason BeDuhn
Associate Professor of Religious Studies, and Chair
Department of Humanities, Arts, and Religion
Northern Arizona University

Answer 3

This depends on which version of The Bible you're talking about. Even among modern bibles different Christian sects have different translations which change the meaning of various passages. Someone here can probably give you some specific examples but one I found easily is this:

For instance, in King James’ day the word ‘prevent’ could mean ‘come before’ but not necessarily in a hindering way. So the translators in that day rendered 1 Thes. 4:15, ‘For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.’ But today the word ‘prevent’ has lost that earlier meaning (come before), so it must be translated differently to convey the proper meaning: ‘According to the Lord’s own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not ‘precede’ those who have fallen asleep’ (NIV).

Even the copy mistakes can't always be ignored and many of the monks in the middle ages changed the wording when copying, adding their own 'take' on a passage. We know this because we have many ancient copies that say different things. Scholars have tried to reconstruct the original texts and books that make up the Bible but because the oldest copies we have are from around 400AD (it varies by book) we may never have all the original text.

You can find more info about one of the earliest "official versions"

Answer 4

There where apparently a digging, where they found more writings of the original writers of the bible, thus showing the bible is incomplete.

Also, remember, the bible has been translated several times. When you translate any text, there are bound to be a few errors, and of course, King James made some changes, like moving the holy day from wednesday to sunday.

Answer 5

Does it really matter if nonsense has been changed or not.

Read something other than the biblical nonsense. It is stifling and keeps you ignorant and trapped in confusion.

There are several good books out there that explain how and why the bible was compiled. Once you know who did it their motives become obvious.

The goal was to cover up and subvert the true teachings of Jesus. If you think of yourself as a true follower of Jesus you owe it to Him to be sure that you are actually following his model.

What are you afraid of? The truth stands up well on its own. Only a lie needs to be protected and guarded from the truth. If you bible is the truth then you have nothing to loose. If it is not, you are far better without it.

Never be afraid of the truth, it is freedom from bondage.

I suggest starting with something simple like The Lost Christianity’s: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew: By Bart D. Ehrman

Ehrman is a biblical scholar with no ax to grind from either perspective. His only goal seems to be to help people find the truth. In my opinion He takes this to extremes at times and almost comes off as being an apologist of biblical nonsense, but all and all his presentation is balanced where mine is not.

It is available in most libraries. God luck in your seeking. Trust that God will help you find the truth. He/She will do Her part if you do yours. But you actually need to open your eyes to the possibility that the bible is a lie that religion tells about God if you are ever going to see it.

Love and blessings
don

Answer 6

I wouldn't say the bible changed; I'd say Jesus' message of unconditional love changed. Bible scholars put the material from the NT into 4 different groups, with one group being 'Jesus most likely taught/said this'. This group represents a small portion of the NT, mostly in the parables. If we look at the history of early christianity, we see so many different people with different interpretations. It's why they had councils to come to agreement on belief, theologians trying to make sense of things, and books written against 'heresies' -- a heresy was just one of the competing interpretations that was disparaged by the dominant groups. The gnostic gospels show jesus in a very different perspective (and this interpretation was branded heresy by the early church). Add all of this to the fact that the gospels were the most popular interpretation of Jesus' message (not necessarily the most accurate) and the fact that Paul's (Saul of Tarsus) letters to early christian communities made it into the NT [Paul never even met Jesus], and I see a message dramatically changed. When people have an experience of God, they come back saying that God is Unconditional Love and that there is no sin. But our ego thought system doesn't work that way -- and it's why Jesus tried to get across this dynamic via the 'good' son in the prodigal son parable (the 'good' son makes god into what he wants him to be and doesn't understand god/love; people did the same with jesus and his message).

Answer 7

Compare the English new testament to Greek versions prior to the year 1300 and you will find lots of differences. Learn Hebrew and read the old testament in the language of the original texts and you will find amazing differences.

And prior to the emperor Constantine's hand picked editor and bishop who decided what was "official" and what wasn't there were entire passages and whole books that were considered "the word of god" then in 312 references to all the subjects that the official church didn't like were removed and considered "apocryphal". It was a group of bishops and politicians that edited the new testament so they could control the church and it's money and people.

Go to a college and learn some history instead of dogma.

Answer 8

The ending verses in Mark are not in older manuscripts... the part of the resurrection of Jesus and his ascension into Heaven. Also, Easter is used in the Bible. That was an ancient Pagan Holiday (and still is one). Now, why would a "religion" that specifically states in the Old Test not to do what the Pagans do and then resort to using one of their Holidays? The time Easter falls is very close to Passover, which most historians say is what Easter is actually referring to.

Answer 9

I would say that anyone who says something that paranoid would be just as crazy as anyone who believes the bible is true.

It hasn't really been changed, however in canonization much of the original material was left out or put in a different order. Read a book or attend a lecture on the historicity of the bible. It's true.

Answer 10

When King James was doing something with the bible they removed books from the bible that weren't suited to the over all theme of the bible (whatever that means...)
Don't take my word for it, I only heard about in on a discovery channel documentary.